MAHAMMAD SARWAR Vs. JAIBUN NISSA BIBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the defendant in T.S.No. 18 of 1993 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack. His application dated 23.2.1998 filed for admitting certain documents having been rejected by the trial Court by order dated 24.2.1998 and revision carried by him before the learned District Judge, Cuttack having been dismissed on 23.2.1999 he has preferred this writ application challenging the aforesaid orders.

(2.) CASE of the plaintiffs -opposite parties is that they are the owner of the suit property and the defendant -petitioner is a tenant under them. The suit has been filed for eviction of the defendant -petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the written statement the defendant -petitioner has taken a stand that his mother acquired Darpattadari Patta in respect of the suit land and disputed ownership of the plaintiffs. The basic question that requires to be decided is whether the defendant -petitioner is a tenant under the plaintiffs or is the owner of the property. By the time the application was filed for admitting documents hearing of the suit had already started and examination of witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs had been closed. It is also stated that two of the witnesses on behalf of the defendant had been examined by the time the said petition was filed. In the petition the defendant -petitioner prayed for admitting near about 20 documents in order to prove that he is the owner of the property. The said petition was rejected on the ground that they are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue and if such documents are admitted at such a belated stage, it will amount to reopening of the suit again. Trial Court having rejected the petition the matter was carried by the defendant -petitioner to the Court of learned District Judge in a revision. With similar finding learned District Judge dismissed the revision.

(3.) AS admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the documents now sought to be admitted have not been referred to in the original written statement. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said documents have been referred to in the additional written statement. Even accepting such a contention it is required for this Court to examine as to whether the documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. The issue is whether the defendant -petitioner is the owner of the property as claimed by him or not. The documents sought to be admitted into evidence are available in Annexure -3. Perusal of the said documents clearly indicate that most of them relate to orders passed in proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. and enquiry report of Tahasildar produced in the said proceeding. The other documents relate to holding tax, holding number plate, assessment list, electoral card, voter list, etc. Admittedly the defendant -petitioner is in possession of the property and the suit has been filed for his eviction form the same. The documents which are now sought to be admitted into evidence mostly relate to the question of possession and do not relate to the question of title. There being no dispute that the defendant -petitioner is in possession of the disputed property, I am of the view that there is no need for admitting the said documents. Rent receipts which are sought to be admitted into evidence in order to prove title over the property have been allowed by the Courts below. So far as other documents are concerned, they mainly relate to the question of possession.